Friday, June 06, 2014

Open thread: The Weeks in Review

The "Weeks in Review" feature is an open thread in which commenters can talk about any current events or cultural phenomena that have caught their attention, including but not limited to the topics brought up in our traditional roundup of state and local news-review and weekly political chat shows. Descriptions of the shows provided by the broadcast outlets in most cases:

Neil Steinberg and I resume our weekly Friday appearances on WBEZ-FM to discuss issues in the news with host Niala Boodhoo. Note how unprepared I was to be introduced (really should have seen that coming) and wait for a listener to call to complain about how Neil mispronouced a word:

Connected To Chicago (WLS Radio) This week’s newsmaker is Zach Fardon, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Issues discussed include: Addressing the segmented violence the plagues some Chicago communities. Does chopping the heads off of gangs create its own problems? Can we prevent factions of gangs? Stopping those paroled from returning to crime. Does the family life of young children turn them to gang life and do the children see the gangs as families? And what can the business communities do to help with the violent situation? Also discussed is what the office is doing to combat political corruption, how many cases they see involving terrorism, and how concerned about it we should be in Chicago. In the Round Table, host Bill Cameron along with Greg Hinz of Crain's Chicago Business, Lynn Sweet of the Sun-Times, and Ray Long of the Tribune discuss Hillary deciding if she is running in 2016. Will Michelle Obama be running against Mark Kirk in 2016? And Bruce Rauner is getting cornered by pay-to-play politics? Finally John Dempsey speaks with NorthShore University Health System’s Carrie Jaworski, M.D. about coping with injuries while getting in shape. They discuss identifying why you feel pain also ways of training around these pains. What are some effective ways to prepare for the upcoming Chicago Marathon as well as other local races?

Chicago Newsroom CAN TV: Host Ken Davis is joined by Alex Keefe, WBEZ and Randi Belisomo, WGN-TV. They discuss the legacy of former Chicago Mayor Jane Byrne, machinations in City Hall and Springfield to address Chicago's pension problems, and a roundup of the week's most interesting news stories. You may subscribe to the audio version of the Chicago Newsroom podcast on iTunes

Chicago Tonight: The Week in Review (WTTW Ch. 11) Host Joel Weisman, Guests: -Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times -John McCarron of the Chicago Tribune -Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times -Danny Ecker of Crain’s Chicago Business: An effort is underway to publicly recognize former mayor Jane Byrne’s service to the city. Mayor Rahm Emanuel chats with late-night talk show host Jimmy Fallon, and patches up a contentious relationship with Inspector General Joe Ferguson. Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy has heart surgery. Gov. Pat Quinn and gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner offer differing views on gay marriage. WBBM-AM will become the new home of Chicago Cubs radio broadcasts. And the White Sox welcome super slugger Jose Abreu back to the lineup. Web Extra: Joel Weisman and his panel of journalists discuss further former mayor Jane Byrne’s impact on Chicago. They also delve into who could potentially wage a challenge to Rahm Emanuel in the next mayoral election, and why Jesse Jackson Jr. could be released early from prison to a halfway house.

Posted at 05:11:00 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

One for the Ghazzers:

When Dan Rather screwed up over the Bush draft-dodging story and the reliance on some unreliable memos, he got fired. He got cashiered after a long and distinguished career at CBS tracing back to the Kennedy assassination and the Vietnam War.

But, when sexy military and right-wing synchophant Lara Logan reported a false Benghazi account that fit the Ghazzers' narrative, and when that story turned out to be a deliberate lie told to promote the liar's right-wing book that was published by a CBS affiliate, and when a CBS internal probe showed that both the conflict of interest and the falsity of the story were knowable (State Department aides who watched it knew it was false the minute they saw it on 60 Minutes), she is allowed to take a leave. After six months or so, she is being allowed back to 60 Minutes, despite big concerns among the other 60 Minutes correspondents and calls from Morley Safer to fire her outright.

Yeah, don't you just love the liberal media. What a crock. It's oh-so-important to kowtow to the Ghazzers and other wingnuts to send them the message: No, we're not biased. We're even willing to air Lara Logan's propagandist garbage, and when she goes too far like we all knew she would, we'll keep her around. Not exactly your father's CBS News.

Many Democrats seem to believe that a large portion of the animosity directed at Obama is because of his race. I understand that there are indeed racists in both parties but the idea that a "large" portion of the opposition is caused by racism seems so obviously untrue that I think people who believe it are delusional. However, I stand willing to listen to and be swayed by a fact based argument showing that this is indeed true. Here are the hurdles you face:

1. I do not believe that Republicans oppose everything Obama does. There are many examples of Obama policies Republicans support (drones) and there are many pieces of legislation that have been passed with Republican support. If Republicans are largely driven by racism, why wouldn't they be driven by racism on everything? It seems to me that if Obama puts forth a policy that Republicans like, they support it. Give us some examples of policies that were stated in McCain's or Romney's platforms that Obama wanted to implement and Republicans opposed.

2. I do not believe that Obama has been treated any worse by the opposition than the last two presidents. Bill Clinton was impeached for getting a hummer. I believe Bill would argue that he was treated worse than Obama. Obama has stretched the law to the limit in his use of executive orders and there certainly is a case for an impeachment investigation but the Republicans don't do it. Granted, it's not much of a case but it's certainly more of a case than they had against Clinton. If they are largely driven by racism why wouldn't they impeach him? Is there really any worse way to treat a President than impeaching him? Bill Clinton would probably say no.

3. If Obama is indeed treated differently in a large part because of race, every professor in America would want to be the person to prove it. I do not know of any research that shows this to be the case. Does any such study exist?

4. I believe that some Democrats are projecting their own feelings when they say Obama is treated differently because of his race because they treat Obama differently because of his race. When MCN says that Obama was elected because of his race a few commenters get all bent out of shape and say he's a racist (which is ludicrous) but they never address his point. If a white person with Obama's exact resume was running for president, what percent of people who voted for him do you think would still vote for him over Hillary in the 2008 primary? If the number is anything less than 100% I'd contend that it's quite possible that Obama beat Hillary because he's black. Do you really believe that 100% of Obama voters would have selected him over Hillary if he was white?

5. In the same vein, I believe that some Democrats treat black Republicans poorly in a large part because of their race. There are numerous instances of Democrats accusing black Republicans of being traitors to their race. This has little to do with the overall issue but do you personally believe that some Democrats treat black Republicans worse than white Republicans?

6. Obama's current approval rating is 43%. What percent do you think it would be if he were white?

7. Obama's highest approval rating was 76%. Clinton's highest approval rating was 73%. If race is a driving factor in the treatment of Obama, how is it possible that he could have higher approval ratings than a white Democrat?

I hope these questions lead to a civil discussion about race without anyone being called a racist.

Premiums on the health insurance private market — that’s the kind people buy out of their own pockets — have been growing steadily since 2008, according to a new report published Thursday.

The report, released by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, is aimed at preempting complaints that Obamacare has made premiums soar.

“From 2008 to 2010, premiums grew by 10 percent or more per year,” Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the architects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, wrote in the report.

“These results provide important guidance for interpreting the rate increases we will see over 2014 to 2015 in state marketplaces. They suggest that strong conclusions about rate effects of the ACA cannot be gleaned from individual insurance filings or even from single states," it adds, and that any rise should be compared with increases of 10 percent or more before the law took effect.

We've already seen one First Lady carpet bag her way into obtaining a Senate seat... And while I really do not like Hillary at least she was a little involved in policy during her husband's term, whereas Michelle's only real policy push is promoting exercise and eating healthy... Hardly worthy of a seat in the Senate, IMHO

Please explain why she would be qualified for such a job, if you don't mind.

I'm not one of the ones bringing up race every chance I get, but to deny that there's a more than insignificant slice of the electorate that holds his race against Obama is as delusional as suggesting that it didn't play a part in his election. But you didn't say that, you said a "large portion." Whether it's a "large" slice depends on how one defines large, as long as you're bringing up Clinton. ; ) There's no denying that there are racists in both parties, of course.

I'm not going to go point by point in rebuttal to your comment, but just to counter the Clinton example, Clinton lost the "white" vote by 2% in both of his elections, in 3-way races; Obama lost it by 12% in 2008, and 20% in 2012. (Granted, the presence of Perot in Clinton's elections confounds the results to some extent, and there are obviously a lot of factors contributing to the results.) (These figures are from the Roper Center charts, if anybody wants to know where I got them.)

You write: "Obama's highest approval rating was 76%. Clinton's highest approval rating was 73%. If race is a driving factor in the treatment of Obama, how is it possible that he could have higher approval ratings than a white Democrat?" I'd say that that is fairly strong evidence that the percentage of racists in the country may well be less than 24%, but it doesn't prove your point. Clearly, "Slick Willie" had other factors working against him.

@Jak: Thanks for the response. You think maybe Perot voters were white and "small government" minded? Hmmm, I wonder who they would have voted for in his absence ;)

It would be interesting to see the approval numbers by race for Clinton, Bush and Obama but I'm too lazy to look for them right now. I would hypothesize that those numbers would show some "racism" by blacks.

I'm kinda surprised none of those who cry "racism" checked in. There's a reason, I guess.

Given the history, I'm not inclined to hold it against black people who voted for a black President when they got a chance, after 219 years of white Presidents, whatever their motivations. I'd like to say that I'm surprised that you'd go for this false equivalency, but how could I be? "let's at least play fair?" Please, fairness has not been a hallmark of the way African-Americans have been dealt with in this country -- to suggest that we have a level playing field, where the "racism" of whites and blacks should be viewed identically, is a non-starter.

"There's a reason, I guess." lexi, that was a civil post, but just because some aren't interested in responding to you, given the snarkiness of many of your posts, doesn't mean that's there's no way to respond. We could spend all day arguing about this and neither of us would change our minds. You know, like most of what we discuss on CoS! ; )

@Jak: I do not begrudge anyone voting based on race. Their vote, their choice.

And believe it or not, I actually could be persuaded that race plays a large part in the opposition to Obama if someone could show me some proof that it's true. In the meantime, I will continue to believe that the huge majority of opposition to Obama (95+%) is based on that big old "D" after his name.

FYI, the only person who refuses to respond to me in other posts is Wendy, and I try to follow her lead by refusing to respond to those who irritate me too much. Except Di. Her ability to avoid and evade conflicting information proves to be too much of an attractive nuisance for me to ignore.

I'll do you one better. I'm not inclined to hold it against black people or white people or any other race of people voting for someone of their own race when they have the chance. It's none of my business why someone votes the way he does. I guess I don't even bother to look closely at whether the "racism" of whites and blacks should be viewed identically because someone else's racism isn't my problem. Now that I think about it, I guess I do view it identically, i.e., with a shrug.

I've treated people of all races fairly, and I have nothing to do with the history or residual lack of level playing field, so when it comes to my own personal motives for voting, I won't take seriously any claim that it's race-based. If someone else claims he is or isn't voting for a candidate based on race, I'm inclined to take him at his word.

If you look at recent patterns, we're increasingly voting along racial lines. I expect that to continue. Whether you think it's a good or bad thing is up to you.

"Politics makes you stupid!
A raft of social science research finds that people seek out facts that prove their political worldview correct, and ignore or reject the ones that challenge it. It's so bad that, in experiments, people reject the right answers to math problems when their conclusion is ideologically threatening."

Interesting that all of these racial lines lead to one side of the political spectrum for the most part. Does this mean that the other side has anti-racial interests? They're rejecting minorities, rather than minorities deciding not to choose them, and they know this. Notice I won't call Republicans the "white" party, because many Caucasians are rejecting them, too.

Overall, great posts. A minor detail - Bill Clinton was not impeached for getting a hummer, he was impeached about lying under oath during a sexual harassment deposition.about getting a hummer.

For those that say that Obama lost vote just because he was black. Those would probably democratic voters that decided they couldn't vote for him because. Conservatives like me weren't go vote for him no matter if he was purple with pink poka-dots. Also, how many votes, especially in 2008, do you think Obama rec'd just because he was black?

Bruce,

Good call on Michelle Obama's political credentials. And it didn't pain me to agree with you. :).

GJO'L,

Never saw the episode, but based on your account, she shouldn't be rehired. But if you think this is proof that the media doesn't tilt left, think again.

I'm merely pointing out that more whites are tending to vote Republican while more minorities, particularly blacks, are trending Democratic. I'm not accusing the Democrats of having anti-white interests. Whether Democrats are rejecting whites or whites are rejecting them is an open question in my mind. I do think that Democrats tend to identify certain groups for special treatment whether it's amnesty, affirmative action, or redefining marriage, but I'm not getting into any of those issues. It's just an opinion based on observations. Strategically, as more whites drift to the GOP and more blacks and Hispanics drift to the Democrats, the outreach is going to have to be targeted at the growing Asian (including Indian) population.

@Norbert: This life long Democrat will never vote for Michelle!
She's never done a damn thing in her life except marry Barack Obama & thus manage to get herself a no work $350,000 a year job at the University of Chicago hospitals, a system that's bleeding doctors to numerous other hospitals around the country due to extreme cost cutting & low salaries [relative to other top rated hospitals]. When she resigned, the post was eliminated.

@GJO'L: You left out that appallingly wrong "report" that 60 Minutes did on Social Security disability several weeks after the Lara Logan atrocity on Benghazi.

ObamaCare has had so many changes that the CBO can no longer measure its true costs.

Also, 2 million enrollees (25%) have discrepancies in the information that they provided the federal gov't. Fraud? Perhaps that enrollee number will be less than 8 million once these folks have been booted.

@GJO'L: The 60 Minutes Social Security report on disability fraud was a pathetic joke as it relied on what was going on with just one or two lawyers that specialize in Social Security disability.
One lawyer, in Kentucky, I believe, has done very well in winning his cases, especially before the administrative law judges.
So they extrapolated this to the entire system & claimed that people were getting disability more because they couldn't get jobs, rather than being disabled.
But when you have a disability, no matter what the law says, if you're in your in late 50s & early 60s, no one will hire you due to that disability. They all want younger workers, even when experience counts.

As I went through the system 20 years ago, it's very difficult to get it, as Disability Determination Services, the state agencies that do the initial two evaluations for the Social Security Administration refuse to follow the law as to what constitutes a disability as set out in SSA's Blue Book. SSA keeps saying they want to reform that part of the system & let claimants directly contest DDS before they issue a ruling, but never seem to get around to doing that.
In my case, the ALJ cut the hearing short & ruled in my favor when it was brought out I had a specific condition that's in the Blue Book. SSA actually hired a doctor for their side!
DDS's refusal to follow the guidelines cost me & other claimants, 25% of the back pay to the lawyer!

I'm convinced that people at DDS are corrupt & are getting kickbacks from the lawyers to deny people, thus forcing them to get a lawyer for the ALJ hearing, as you do need one to get through it as it's similar to a regular court hearing, but with lesser formality.

Very cool story about Bill Watterson and Stephan Pastis. Thanks for posting the link. Alas, "Pearls Before Swine" appears in that *other* newspaper. Neil Steinberg blogged about it today on his S-T "Voices" blog. Although he starts with a citation of "Nancy," which certainly seemed like a lame comic to me by the time I was reading it, this sentence might put the affair in perspective for the non-funnies fan: "it would be like my getting Thomas Pynchon to write the middle section of my column."

Steinberg concludes: "The beauty of a stunt like this is that not only is it a treat for regular readers of the comics, but it’s a reminder to those of us who have wandered off that they are still there, despite everything, a glorious art form, when done right, waiting for us wayward souls to come home."

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

-- As Gov. of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle and in any public place.
-- As Gov. of Cal. Reagan signed off on a 15-day waiting period for guns.
-- As president he signed into law a ban on ownership of fully automatic rifles.
-- After leaving the presidency he supported the Brady Bill which provided for a 7-day waiting period for guns.
-- In 1994 he wrote Congress supporting a ban on assault rifles.

Where I live, in the SW suburbs, the ash trees have been dying like flies because of the emerald ash borer. The larva eats the cambium, the layer just under the outer bark through which water and nutrients flow up into the tree. With that channel cut off, the tree dies.

I have two autumn purple ashes in my side yard that I've been treating with a systemic insecticide and fertilizer made by Bayer. You pour it around the base of the tree, and it's drawn up into the tree with the water and nutrients. The beetle larva eats the cambium, and goes off t the last great ash grove in the sky, hopefully before doing much damage.

I don't mean to advertise this particular product; there are others that may well do the same job. My ash trees are doing fine, though, and any of the commentariat who have ash trees may want to tae similar measures.

Saw some more reports about the search for Bergdahl. Reuters has something today; not as good as NYT last week. The NYT story is packed with facts, details, and timelines casting much doubt on whether the six soldiers cited in the Mark Thonpson and NY Post stories were actually killed while searching for Bergdahl. The story suggests that the situation on the ground was very complicated, driven by many factors independent of Bergdahl's absence, and perhaps not knowable now so many years later. There is a plausible theory suggesting that troops were spread too thin looking for him in early July of that year, and that the Taliban took advantage of the situation, launching attacks that killed the two soldiers at that time. But there aren't enough facts to prove or disprove that theory, and some facts undermine it. The other four deaths happen more than a month later. The case linking those deaths to "searching for Bergdahl" is much weaker. This was a highly dangerous combat zone. Some soldiers who were there are insisting that every mission was at least in part a search for Bergdahl so whenever people were killed in that 2-3 month period, they were killed searching for Bergdahl. That is a fairly sweeping proposition. I remain unpersuaded and uncertain of whether Bergdahl ought to blamed for any of the six deaths. I am certain that we don't know enough to say so right now. The NYT story by the way was so much more carefully researched and written, compared for example to the Jake Tapper piece. You can't just talk to a few angry soldiers. You need to see the Army activity logs, and you need to consider the whole picture of what the Taliban and our soldiers were doing in the province during that time period. Again, it's very complicated and very foggy, and foggy enough to allow lazy reporters to put together a splashy account that has sources but not enough facts.

The North American ash population is doomed., Best advice I can give you is to remove those trees now, plant something new and get on with life.

All the treatment in the world won't save your trees, at best it will delay the eventual demise a couple of seasons.

I removed my ash trees a couple years back. My neighbors are trying to fight the borers with treatments and extensive payments to an arborist, and their trees look worse than mine ever did.

Put in a couple of quaking aspens in their place, and thank me later. (Aspens are fast growing, hardy trees and have fabulous fall colors and they do great in our climate. Plus, the flat petioles mean the leaves shake and shimmer in even the slightest breeze. A terrific tree.)

jpn, I think you'\re right about the ashes. I'm going to keep up with the treatments on my Autumn Purples anyway, though. They're good-sized trees - 7, 8 inches DBH - and have grown a lot in the past year. Maybe when I die, so do they.

I question the arborist approach. My nephew had one come out for an ash tree in his back yard. The guy drilled holes in the trunk and injected some chemicals. Drilling the holes disrupts the cambium, and I wonder how well the injected materials would be taken up after that.

Thanks for the quaking aspen suggestion. We're thinking of replacing our parkway trees (European alders, a messy tree) and I'll add the aspens to the list of candidates.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.